Category: Canada

Posted on

Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Assisted Suicide Requests

Remember how people were warning that assisted suicide (medical assistance in dying or MAiD) wouldn’t be the limited measure that was initially laid out? Those alarmists worried that safeguards and conditions would be rolled back to further expand this “procedure”.

Well, here we go again. Senate Bill S-248 would allow people to enter into contracts that would permit the euthanasia, even if the person isn’t capable of giving that final consent.

Supporters of MAiD had always claimed that the patient would always have the option to change their mind, and to back out. This would allow for contemplation, and for cooler heads to prevail.

From the description of the Bill:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
.
(a) permit an individual whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to enter into a written arrangement to receive medical assistance in dying on a specified day if they lose the capacity to consent to receiving medical assistance in dying prior to that day; and
.
(b) permit an individual who has been diagnosed with a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability to make a written declaration to waive the requirement for final consent when receiving medical assistance in dying if they lose the capacity to consent to receive medical assistance in dying, are suffering from symptoms outlined in the written declaration and have met all other relevant safeguards outlined in the Criminal Code.

Of course, the usual questions will come up. Did the person fully understand and support this decision? Was their undue influence? Did they ever change their mind? How do we determine whether or not they are capable of giving that final go-ahead?

There is still a provision that the person can speak or gesture to indicate that they no longer wish to go through with this. However, if they are incapacitated, that obviously won’t help.

This Bill was brought by Pamela Wallin. A decade ago, she became infamous for playing fast and loose with her expenses and got suspended, along with Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau.

In her capacity as a Senator, Wallin has had some interesting visitors recently.

Wallin brought this Bill on June 2, 2022. The day before, the Alzheimer Society of Canada had paid a visit. Among the topics listed in their lobbying profiled was: “Parliamentary review of medical assistance in dying with respect to advance requests”. In other words, go ahead, even if final consent can’t be obtained.

Field Trip Psychedelics Inc. has also been in touch with Wallin. This was concering the: “regulation of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy that would give Canadians access to medical, non-recreational, psilocybin therapy.”

The Canadian Palliative Hospice Care Assocation also has contacted Wallin. Although their profile does mention end of life care, it doesn’t specify assisted suicide.

In any event, these are probably just coincidences, right?

Shouldn’t be any surprise that Wallin brought this Bill. But seriously, how far back do we keep pushing the line, or is there a limit?

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-248
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-248/first-reading
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-moving-to-suspend-pamela-wallin-mike-duffy-1.2101305
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=533156
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=367664&regId=905218&blnk=1
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=533156
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=14475&regId=923718&blnk=1
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=523500
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=15059&regId=917004&blnk=1

Posted on

Bill C-5: Eliminating Mandatory Sentences For Serious Gun Crimes

Canada’s Bill C-5 is a piece of legislation has been rightfully criticized as gutting the strength of crimes involving firearms. While this is true, it’s quite shocking to see the actual details.

Comparing the current version of the Criminal Code versus the changes being pushed, it’s unsettling. Punishments for some of the most serious offences are being gutted.

Here’s a look at some of the changes that would be made.

Using firearm in commission of offence
.
85 (1) Every person commits an offence who uses a firearm, whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the firearm,
.
(a) while committing an indictable offence, other than an offence under section 220 (criminal negligence causing death), 236 (manslaughter), 239 (attempted murder), 244 (discharging firearm with intent), 244.2 (discharging firearm — recklessness), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault), subsection 279(1) (kidnapping) or section 279.1 (hostage taking), 344 (robbery) or 346 (extortion);
.
(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence; or
(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence.
.
Marginal note: Using imitation firearm in commission of offence
.
(2) Every person commits an offence who uses an imitation firearm
(a) while committing an indictable offence,
(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or
(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,
.
whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the imitation firearm.
.
Marginal note: Punishment
.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
.
(a) in the case of a first offence, except as provided in paragraph (b), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; and
.
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years.

Under the current version of the Criminal Code, a person faced a minimum of a year in prison (for a first offence), and 3 years (for subsequent offences). While this is still pretty lenient, there were at least minimums. This applies to:

  • s.220 (criminal negligence causing death)
  • s.236 (manslaughter)
  • s.239 (attempted murder)
  • s.244 (discharging firearm with intent)
  • s.244.2 (discharging firearm — recklessness)
  • s.272 (sexual assault with a weapon)
  • s.273 (aggravated sexual assault),
  • s.279(1) (kidnapping)
  • s.279.1 (hostage taking)
  • s.344 (robbery)
  • s.346 (extortion)

However, s.85(3) would be rewritten to remove the minimum terms, and simply replace them with 14 year maximums. Not only are the minimums removed, but another part of the Bill changes the rules surrounding conditional sentencing (house arrest) for serious crimes.

It’s worth pointing out that there doesn’t seem to be much of a distinction between a crime committed using a real firearm v.s. one where a replica is used. Makes sense, as it wouldn’t really matter to the victims, if they believed it to be real.

Reasonable people can disagree on how widespread minimum sentencing should be. That said, there are offences where it needs to exist, just to have some sense of law and order.

Possession of firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized
.
92 (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm or a non-restricted firearm knowing that the person is not the holder of
.
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.
.
Marginal note: Possession of prohibited weapon, device or ammunition knowing its possession is unauthorized
.
(2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.
.
Marginal note: Punishment
.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) in the case of a first offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years;
(b) in the case of a second offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; and
(c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years less a day.

For possession of a firearm (where it’s known to be illegal, second and subsequent convictions currently carry mandatory jail sentences. This Bill would change that to simply a maximum punishment of 10 years. It would be entirely up to the Judge to impose the sentence.

Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition
.
95 (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, without being the holder of
.
(a) an authorization or a licence under which the person may possess the firearm in that place; and
(b) the registration certificate for the firearm.
.
Marginal note: Punishment
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
.
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, three years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years; or
.
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

In fairness, this change is one that actually makes sense. There is no crime or issue other than simple possession and storage. Here the minimum sentence (if by way of indictment) would be 1, 3, or 5 years, depending on previous convictions. In theory, a person could be locked up for handing the guns of a friend or family member.

Granted, there was the exception built in for being directly supervised by someone with lawful possession. That said, the current form seemed to open to interpretation.

s.96(2)‍(a) of the Criminal Code carries a 1 year minimum for people who obtain firearms if they knew that it was done illegally. That minimum would be removed under Bill C-5. Of course, there’s an exception that allows the person to turn it in without consequences.

s.99(3) covers weapons trafficking, and lists a 1 year minimum jail term for people convicted of this offense. Consistent with other changes, that mandatory provision would be removed. Instead, there would simply be a 10 year maximum sentence.

s.100(3) gets into possession for the purposes of trafficking. Similarly, the 1 year mandatory minimum sentence would be struck from the Criminal Code.

s.103(2.1) removes the 1 year minimum sentence for importing or exporting firearms, if it’s known they are unauthorized. However, this change will only apply to guns that are neither restricted nor prohibited.

Discharging firearm with intent
.
244 (1) Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person — whether or not that person is the one at whom the firearm is discharged.
.
Marginal note: Punishment
.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
.
(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
.
(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years; and
.
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.

Currently, if it’s not a prohibited or restricted firearm, and not done in association with a criminal organization, there is a 4 year minimum. That would disappear under this Bill.

Side note: if a gun is discharged in a way that’s designed to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of a person, that sounds pretty close to attempted murder.

Discharging firearm — recklessness
.
244.2 (1) Every person commits an offence
.
(a) who intentionally discharges a firearm into or at a place, knowing that or being reckless as to whether another person is present in the place; or
(b) who intentionally discharges a firearm while being reckless as to the life or safety of another person.
.
Definition of place
.
(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(a), place means any building or structure — or part of one — or any motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, railway vehicle, container or trailer.
.
Marginal note: Punishment
.
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and
(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
.
(i) five years, in the case of a first offence, and
(ii) seven years, in the case of a second or subsequent offence; and
.
(b) in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years.

Recklessly discharging a firearm (that’s not restricted or prohibited) currently carries a 4 year minimum jail sentence. That would be eliminated under this Bill, at least in its current form.

A pattern in this legislation is that removing minimum sentences only seems to apply to non-restricted or prohibited firearms. They really seem intent on pushing that.

Robbery
.
344 (1) Every person who commits robbery is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
.
(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
.
(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;
.
(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Robbery with a firearm (that’s not restricted or prohibited) currently carries a 4 year minimum jail sentence. That would be removed under this Bill, leaving open the possibility of a convict receiving a conditional sentence.

Extortion
.
s.346.(1.1) Every person who commits extortion is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
.
(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used [non restricted or prohibited] in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

Bill C-5 would remove a provision that imposes a mandatory 4 year prison term for extortion using a non-restricted firearm by repealing s.346(1.1)(a.1). However, there is a separate section dealing with restricted and prohibited firearms, that appears to be left intact.

The criminal would still be exposed to a potential life sentence, but the minimum term would be eliminated.

Imposing of conditional sentence
.
742.1 If a person is convicted of an offence and the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, the court may, for the purpose of supervising the offender’s behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community, subject to the conditions imposed under section 742.3, if
.
(c) the offence is not an offence, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life;

Offenses which were ineligible for house arrest (conditional sentencing) include:

  • s.268 aggravated assault
  • s.272.(1)(a) sexual assault with a weapon
  • s.272.(1)(b) sexual assault with threats to cause bodily harm
  • s.272.(1)(c) sexual assault causing bodily harm
  • s.272.(1)(c.1) sexual assault involving choking, suffocation or strangulation
  • s.273 aggravated sexual assault

Now, should this Bill pass in its current form, people convicted of the above would once again be eligible for house arrest as an alternative to prison. Instead, 3 specific offences will be listed.

  • s.239 (attempted murder)
  • s.269.1 (torture)
  • s.318 (advocating genocide)

Strange that a “feminist” administration claims to care so much about women, while trying pass legislation to make it easier for violent and sexual predators to avoid prison time.

In fairness, just because conditional sentencing is back on the table, it doesn’t mean that convicts would be getting it in large numbers. It just means that the option has been restored.

It’s also illogical that this Government would be putting the screws to legal gun owners, while watering down the criminal punishments for offences involving guns. Then again, perhaps causing chaos or instability is what’s really at play here.

Consider the earlier coverage of Bill C-75, which was introduced in Trudeau’s first term. This monster included: (a) reduced penalties for terrorism offences; (b) reduced penalties for child sex offences; (c) influence from groups pushing alternative lifestyles; and (d) decriminalizing misinformation.

It’s quite amazing what can be inserted into legislation, and the effects it will have. However, far too few people actually read into these things.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-5
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-5/third-reading
(3) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/index.html
(4) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11.6/FullText.html#h-224023

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws In Canada For Hate Speech?

Bill C-261 is a piece of legislation that will allow individual members of the public to get Court orders against other people. This can be done if they have “reasonable grounds for fearing” that someone is, or will engage in hate speech, promote hate or violence, or commit an offence that is motivated by hate.

Hate motivated crimes are already illegal, and subject to serious consequences. That being said, this Bill would permit people to seek Court orders based on what someone might do. There’s no requirement that an offense have already been committed.

And what is “hate propaganda” for these purposes? It’s unclear. Would saying that men are men and that women are women qualify?

To address the obvious: yes, this is a Private Member’s Bill. They rarely become law.

However, it’s worth covering as it gives an insight into the kinds of activities our elected officials are talking about. Moreover, the content of a Private Bill may one day be slipped into a larger Bill, receiving little to no scrutiny.

Appearances
(2) The provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

Adjudication
(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.

Duration extended
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.

Refusal to enter into recognizance
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Here’s where the enforcement comes in. If the person refuses to enter into the recognizance (court order) that person can be incarcerated for a year.

It’s unclear what threshold would be required for the Judge to conclude that someone has a reasonable fear. This comes across as being entirely subjective.

Conditions in recognizance
Start of inserted block
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that
.
(a) require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
.
(b) require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
.
(c) require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
.
(d) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance;
.
(e) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified, in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant, by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(b) to specify them, if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or
.
(f) prohibit the defendant from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.

Without having been charged or convicted of any offence, a Judge has the power to impose:
(a) electronic monitoring
(b) house arrest or a curfew
(c) an alcohol prohibition
(d) demands to provide samples for testing
(e) no contact orders, or orders to stay away from places

And it doesn’t stop there.

Conditions — firearms
(7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.

Surrender, etc.
(8) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in that subsection that are in the defendant’s possession shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with and how the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant shall be surrendered.

Reasons
(9) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.

A Judge can also order that a person be prohibited from possessing any weapons, and be ordered to surrender any that they do have. Again, a person doesn’t have to be criminally charged for any of this to take place.

Interestingly, the Judge would be required to provide an explanation if there is no provision to prohibit that person from owning or using firearms or other weapons.

The language here is quite similar to Bill C-21, which would allow private citizens to have guns removed if a Judge viewed someone as a threat. There was a lot wrong with that Bill, but C-261 would water down the requirement so that the target didn’t even have to be a threat.

There is the safeguard that the Attorney General has to approve such an application. But that raises the question of to what degree this process will be open to political interference. Worse, the vague wording on what qualifies leaves a lot open to interpretation.

While this particular piece may not go anywhere, it’s entirely possible that the content will be stuffed into another Bill at some point in the future. Vigilance is needed.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-261/first-reading
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-21/first-reading
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/bill-c-21-reintroduced-legislation-to-whittle-away-gun-rights/

Posted on

O.I.C. 2022-1144: Handgun Sales Banned In Canada, Effective October 21

Without going through the legislative process, the Canadian Government has banned the sale, purchase or transfer of handguns. This has been done by Order In Council, and not by a vote. The specific Order is #2022-1144, from the Ministry of Public Safety.

The disarmament of the Canadian public continues, piece by piece.

Bill C-21 would have made a number of changes, including this ban on handgun sales.

The earlier incarnation of this Bill died when the Fall 2021 election was called. A similar version was re-introduced, with many of the same draconian measures. This includes red flag laws and yellow flag laws. That being said, it seems the Government isn’t willing to wait, or to take the chance that this won’t pass either.

This isn’t the first time (even on this Bill) that Ottawa has unilaterally implemented a portion of its own legislation without debate. On August 19, 2022, the importation of handguns into Canada was banned

Bill C-21 is currently only in its second reading, and addresses portions of the Firearms Act, such as:

Registration Certificates
Marginal note:Registration certificate
12.1 A registration certificate may only be issued for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm.

This would have been changed by adding that by adding a provision that a certificate cannot be issued for a handgun.

Apparently, any handgun applications submitted before today will still be processed, but any new ones will not.

Many predicted that after O.I.C. 2020-0298 (banning hundreds of models by executive decision), the incremental cuts would come. Keep in mind, it’s too obvious to do all at once, so the rights must be whittled away in a piecemeal fashion in order to succeed.

Now, how long until there’s a new O.I.C. to confiscate all handguns completely?

(1) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/results.php?lang=en
(2) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=42706&lang=en
(3) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-21
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-21/first-reading
(5) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39208&lang=en
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/ottawa-to-ban-handgun-imports-august-19th-using-regulatory-measure/
(7) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-bans-new-handgun-sales-in-latest-gun-control-action
(8) https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1583502471238160384

Posted on

Supreme Court Reserves Decision On Challenge To Safe Third Country Agreement

The Supreme Court of Canada recently heard a challenge to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA), on grounds that it violates the Charter of Rights. This was based on 3 consolidated cases of people attempting to enter Canada from the U.S., and being denied.

The primary NGOs acting were: (a) Amnesty International; (b) the Canadian Council for Refugees; and (c) the Canadian Council of Churches. However, there were others who piled on, demanding open borders for people entering Canada illegally.

  • Appellant Canadian Council for Refugees et al.
  • Appellant Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
  • Intervener Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
  • Intervener David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights et al
  • Intervener National Council of Canadian Muslims et al
  • Intervener Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
  • Intervener Queen’s Prison Law Clinic
  • Intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association
  • Intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
  • Intervener Advocates for the Rule of Law
  • Intervener Rainbow Railroad
  • Intervener HIV AIDS Legal Clinic of Ontario
  • Intervener Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights et al
  • Intervener Rainbow Refugee Society

It’s strange that virtually any special interest group can get standing as an intervenor to attack our borders. Meanwhile, actual citizens don’t have standing to demand that laws and borders be enforced.

For context, it’s important to realize that attacking the function of a border is not new. In fact, these groups have been at it for a long time. Here are some of their efforts. Note: these listings are not exclusive.

Efforts appear to have kicked off after January 1, 1989. This was based on changes to the procedures for determining whether applicants come within the definition of a Convention Refugee.

First attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

April 26, 1989, the Federal Court dismissed an application to strike from the Attorney General of Canada. This had been brought on the basis that the Canadian Council of Churches did not have standing to bring the action and had not demonstrated a cause of action.

March 12, 1990, the Federal Court of Appeals refused to hear the challenge of this idea, since no country had yet been designated a “safe country”. In other words, the Canadian Council of Churches had simply fought the concept of a safe country designation.

January 23, 1992, the Supreme Court disallowed the challenge on the grounds that the CCC lacked the necessary standing, and that there were other, more effective ways to achieve their results.

Second attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

December 2004, the Canada/U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement comes into effect. It’s worth noting that it’s really a 3-way treaty that includes the UNHCR, or United Nations High Commission on Refugees. Of course, there are also limitation and exceptions that make it largely worthless.

November 29, 2007, the Federal Court ruled that the S3CA violated Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter, and that they couldn’t be “saved” as reasonable limitations under Section 1. Ottawa decided to appeal that ruling.

June 27, 2008, the previous ruling was set aside on the grounds that appearing at a border port meant they could be turned away, and that it wasn’t a breach of international obligations.

Third attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

July 23, 2015, the Federal Court allowed reconsideration of refugee applications from people coming from Hungary and Serbia. Up until this point, those countries were considered “safe” under the Designation Country of Origin (DCO) policy. This meant that approximately 40 countries — mainly in Europe — were viewed as safe. As a result, there would be mechanisms to expedite the process (and deportations) of claimants from there.

May 17, 2019, the Trudeau Government ended the DCO practice. This meant that no source country would automatically be considered “safe”, for people coming to Canada. Considering the S3CA was still in place, that left the United States as the only country that people could be turned away from (close to automatically). The list (and dates) are still available for reference.

Fourth attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

July 22, 2020, the Federal Court ruled that Section 7 of the Charter (security of the person) was violated by the S3CA. While Section 15 (equality) was cited as well, the Judge declined to rule on that provision. Barring an appeal, or legislative changes, the treaty was effectively dead.

April 15, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeals overturned that decision. Section 7 was no violated after all. Now, there had been a cross appeal, as the initial Judge declined to address Section 15. That was dismissed as well, meaning the S3CA was restored to its original form.

October 6, 2022, the Supreme Court hears arguments on striking down the S3CA on constitutional grounds. The decision is reserved, and it’s unclear when the ruling will occur. This is where we are today.

There’s a certain hypocrisy that needs to be pointed out: Refugee groups attack the S3CA, at least partially on the grounds that the U.S. is an unsafe country, and that they need better protection. In the meantime, these same groups promote refugee resettlement into America, as it’s a safe haven. In other words, whether or not the U.S. is safe depends entirely on who the audience is.

Of course, there was never any consultation with Canadians as to whether this is what they really wanted. It’s outrageous that the citizens might want to weigh in.

There’s also another elephant in the room that needs to be addressed: having lax border policies makes it easier to smuggle (or worse, traffic) people into another country. This does nothing to address that problem, but more on that elsewhere on the site.

(1) https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=39749
(2) https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39749
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/1989/1989canlii9436/1989canlii9436.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/1990/1990canlii8019/1990canlii8019.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii116/1992canlii116.html
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/final-text.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2007/2007fc1262/2007fc1262.html
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2008/2008fca229/2008fca229.html
(9) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc892/2015fc892.html
(10) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2019/05/canada-ends-the-designated-country-of-origin-practice.html
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2020/2020fc770/2020fc770.html
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2021/2021fca72/2021fca72.html

Posted on

Danielle Smith Already Backpeddling On Protecting Medical Autonomy

This topic had been covered a few months ago, when the campaign had been ongoing. Unfortunately, none of the major issues from this article were addressed in any meaningful way.

Smith made headlines throughout the country recently, openly admitting that the “unvaccinated” were in fact a group that was openly discriminated against. It was refreshing to finally hear someone say this.

While this was welcomed, already, cracks were beginning to form in the persona Smith presented. This had been covered before as well. Although she presented as outraged in her remarks, Smith came across more as if she were reading a script that had been rehearsed.

However, she backpeddled the next day on that. As soon as other groups start whining about oppression, she caved in on what appeared to be a principled stance. Of course, there were the larger issues that remain unspoken.

  • Canada being a signatory to the World Health Constitution destroys any real sovereignty
  • Public Health Agency of Canada a defacto branch of W.H.O.
  • Bill C-12, 2005 Quarantine Act written by W.H.O., not elected M.P.s
  • Quarantine Act is national implementation of Int’l Health Regulations, 3rd Ed.
  • Alberta Public Health Act is local implementation of Quarantine Act

While professing her desire to protect Albertans from Government overreach, Smith says nothing about the structure in place that will make this next to impossible. She either omits (or is unaware) that both Jason Kennery and Rachel Notley are promoted by the World Economic Forum.

Additionally, Smith downplays just how rampant the deception of this “pandemic” has really been. She plays along with the narrative that there really is a virus, and that there was just overreaction.

What kind of party will she be leading anyway? The U.C.P., United Conservative Party, was either too weak — or complicit — to stop Jason Kenney, Tyler Shandro and Deena Hinshaw from imposing “medical” tyranny in the first place. Incidently, she hasn’t called for imprisoning them, either. Innocent people were fined and/or jailed for simply trying to live their lives.

There’s never been any sort of apology for accepting the CEWS money, from the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy program. The U.C.P. got paid the bailout money, and touted the narrative that there was a global pandemic. Of course, they aren’t alone.

Smith suggests amending the Human Rights Act as a means to ensure there wouldn’t be discrimination against people in these circumstances again. As with many things, the devil’s in the details, and it’s unclear how this would be done. These “Codes” are commonly used as weapons for fringe minority groups to flex their muscles. Rarely, is it used to actually protect rights.

When Smith made this announcement, she was denounced for it. This was for suggesting that this group was the most seriously targetted. The entire backlash comes across as a dog-and-pony show.

Makes one wonder if she was serious about that Alberta Sovereignty Act being proposed, or whether that was just a stunt to get elected.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/what-danielle-smith-isnt-telling-her-supporters/
(2) https://www.bitchute.com/video/CleEuVnGX7D6/
(3) https://twitter.com/ABDanielleSmith/status/1580257060465541120
(4) https://twitter.com/ABDanielleSmith/status/1578435669286092801
(5) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch
(6) https://daniellesmith.ca/alberta-sovereignty-act/